Paul Merson: Football, Gambling & Me

North Lower Neil said:

cafctom said:

bobmunro said:

cafctom said:

ValleyGary said:

Addickted said:

So bookies are free to limit the bets of consistent winners, but seem incapable of doing the same to consistent losers.

Yet they 'look after them'? Ahh, the sweet smell of hypocrisy.

You win a £300 acca with Bet365 they’ll put your account to £3 maximum bet. They do not like losing.

I was listening to The Price of Football podcast earlier this week, and they had a professional gambler interviewed on there. His sole income is from researching, analysing betting markets and odds to make his money through winning bets.

He said that he can no longer have betting accounts in his own name now, as they’ve all caught onto the fact that he wins a lot more than he loses.

The whole thing just seems like a con (from the bookie side).

On a side note - he was also a Rochdale fan so worth tuning in to to hear their discussion around the takeover/Matt Southall.

So this is a guy who makes his sole income from gambling? 

Due to the fact that a bet needs to be a commercial arrangement between two parties who are both willing to enter into the contract, there is nothing in place that dictates that the gambling business must accept your bet. This is exactly the same as any other business operating in the UK. As with commercial businesses, offers may be withdrawn whenever the company feels like it. And so too, gambling businesses may withdraw offers or refuse bets as a way of reducing the risk to their own business.

No business would enter into a contract knowing they would be selling the product or service at a loss.

Getting other people to place the bets?

This is unlawful, and also against all bookmakers terms and conditions. Not least because the operator has a legal obligation to know their customer - what would stop an adult placing bets on behalf on minors?

All valid points. 

My argument would be that ethically it seems wrong to entice people with the expectation that they could ‘win big’ with all the regular tactics they deploy - to then lock the customer in emotionally and dictate the ongoing arrangements so that it was only balanced in one direction.

I understand why they do it - I just think it is morally wrong.

Completely agree with this - I understand why they do it, but the limiting/essentially stopping of people who might win money off them by the bookies sticks in the craw given that effectively the whole point of gambling is you may win, the bookie may win etc.

I got limited / closed by 90% of online bookies a few years ago because I was taking too many offers and not giving anything back to them.

At the time it was upsetting. Why did they close my account but seemingly welcome problem gamblers with open arms? (I had no evidence for this, I just felt slighted)

Being a bit removed from it all now, I can see how difficult it would be to differentiate someone who is losing but can afford it vs someone is who losing and can’t afford it. I suppose bet sizes come into it alongside a multitude of other factors put together by algorithms far cleverer than me.

The other thing I realised about bookies is that they *HAVE* to offer bets for almost anything you can think of or they risk falling behind the competition. The punter can pick and choose what they play but bookies have to price up everything and have to put themselves at risk accordingly. If they didn’t ban winners, they’d be out of business within the year because they’d be milked dry by the world of “professional gamblers”. They have to try to protect their business.

Now the really clever people will get their bets on in other ways and that’s the cat and mouse game between bookies and sharp punters. If they legally had to keep it opened up to winners, I would be one of many logging back on to Bet365 tomorrow and taking them to the cleaners for all they’re worth.

There are so many betting companies, so that if one of them identifies a problem gambler and shuts down their account, there are plenty of others who will open a new account. I presume that with data protection, the betting companies can't pass on information to others. 

Slightly off the topic of gambling advertising, but still relevant. I was coming home late a while back and was walking down wood green high road. I'd crossed the street from my usual route as I was searching for some fast food but everything was shut. What wasn't shut were a string of about 4 of those 'cashino' type shops, with bouncers outside the door! I'd honestly never noticed them! I imagine these are very dangerous places if you like to gamble. Open 24hrs and anyone can just walk in off the street. Have no idea how these places are regulated?

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

Watched this last night, the bit where it said Merson, Gillespie, Hartson and the other player (who was he?) had combined estimated losses of over 12m was crazy!

Also equally as crazy is the guy who made well over 2,000 different cash deposits into his betting account in one year! How does a bookie not flag that and ban him for his own good? Incredible really.

That's just three footballers who have been prepared to admit to their losses. I suspect we all know of others who couldn't wait for the end of training before to get to the bookies in the days when online betting wasn't around. One ex Charlton player I know of could have any bet he liked in the one nearest the training ground - no referrals whatsoever - simply because, like Merson, even if he won he simply wouldn't walk away 'til it was all gone.

Addick Addict said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

Watched this last night, the bit where it said Merson, Gillespie, Hartson and the other player (who was he?) had combined estimated losses of over 12m was crazy!

Also equally as crazy is the guy who made well over 2,000 different cash deposits into his betting account in one year! How does a bookie not flag that and ban him for his own good? Incredible really.

That's just three footballers who have been prepared to admit to their losses. I suspect we all know of others who couldn't wait for the end of training before to get to the bookies in the days when online betting wasn't around. One ex Charlton player I know of could have any bet he liked in the one nearest the training ground - no referrals whatsoever - simply because, like Merson, even if he won he simply wouldn't walk away 'til it was all gone.

Which player was that ?

Addick Addict said:

Lordflashheart said:

Addick Addict said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

Watched this last night, the bit where it said Merson, Gillespie, Hartson and the other player (who was he?) had combined estimated losses of over 12m was crazy!

Also equally as crazy is the guy who made well over 2,000 different cash deposits into his betting account in one year! How does a bookie not flag that and ban him for his own good? Incredible really.

That's just three footballers who have been prepared to admit to their losses. I suspect we all know of others who couldn't wait for the end of training before to get to the bookies in the days when online betting wasn't around. One ex Charlton player I know of could have any bet he liked in the one nearest the training ground - no referrals whatsoever - simply because, like Merson, even if he won he simply wouldn't walk away 'til it was all gone.

Which player was that ?

I'd rather not say but that person is a Charlton legend and has openly admitted that he wished he'd "looked after his money more" 

Must be Richard Rufus then !!!

bobmunro said:

Henry Irving said:

JaShea99 said:

It always amazes me how people who work in the gambling industry pipe up to defend it whenever threads like this come up. I’d have thought they would just keep quiet, knowing how things really are. But to actually have the front to attempt to justify how they’ve made and continue to make a living as being (seemingly) morally fine is mind-blowing to me. As for the outright lie or perhaps delusion, in expecting people to believe that ‘no gambling company likes problem gamblers’, it almost defies belief.

A scummy thing to say about a respected poster @bobmunro who has only ever been reasonable in his responses on this and other threads about gambling.

Whether people agree with him or not his views are very relevant to the debate and always considered.

He doesn't need me to defend him but Bob makes his living in a legal and heavily regulated industry that the vast majority of users enjoy without any problem.

Thanks, Henners. Maybe I’m a sensitive soul and perhaps I should let accusations of being called a liar and immoral go over my head. But then again ….

My last post on this thread and a considerable time out on any other thread.

What I find somewhat ironic (and piss boiling) is how this forum has a multitude of threads about betting:

- Beat the Bookie
- Sport of Kings
- Cheltenham
- Royal Ascot
- The Grand National (probably the most looked forward to thread in the sporting calendar thanks to the amazing insight of @PeanutsMolloy
- Weekend Betting
- Charlton to win, promotion, top half (yes 9/4 was great value for the umpteenth time)
- The thread about Boxing

i could go on.

There will be contributors to this bookie bashing thread and others that attack the industry who are also avid contributors to the threads listed above. Just a hint of hypocrisy? 

Then there are others in this thread and other similar threads who whinge and moan because they can’t get on! You couldn’t make it up.

All I try to do is give a bit of the other side - attempting to get some sort of balance. I am not going to stand by and watch the industry I have been in for forty years have the shit ripped out of it by hypocrites and I’ll-informed opinion.

Nuff said - over and out (of here).

None of those threads, indeed CL itself, wouldn't be half as interesting if it weren't for your contributions @BobMunro
For what it's worth, my view is we all need to take responsibility for our own actions and decisions rather than blame others who are acting perfectly lawfully. And specifically, regardless of whether we think it's offered sincerely or not, all who gamble need to heed the warnings and advice that betting firms provide about limiting risk and losses.
I completely understand that we all struggle with our personal set of addictions (being judgemental of others being a particularly popular one right now). And, sadly, some of those of addictions are more destructive to ourselves and our families than others. But if something's legal, it's not fair (in my book) to attack people involved in it who are acting responsibly and providing a service that many, many enjoy using.
Simple.
Don't stay away too long please Bob.

Lordflashheart said:

Addick Addict said:

Lordflashheart said:

Addick Addict said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

Watched this last night, the bit where it said Merson, Gillespie, Hartson and the other player (who was he?) had combined estimated losses of over 12m was crazy!

Also equally as crazy is the guy who made well over 2,000 different cash deposits into his betting account in one year! How does a bookie not flag that and ban him for his own good? Incredible really.

That's just three footballers who have been prepared to admit to their losses. I suspect we all know of others who couldn't wait for the end of training before to get to the bookies in the days when online betting wasn't around. One ex Charlton player I know of could have any bet he liked in the one nearest the training ground - no referrals whatsoever - simply because, like Merson, even if he won he simply wouldn't walk away 'til it was all gone.

Which player was that ?

I'd rather not say but that person is a Charlton legend and has openly admitted that he wished he'd "looked after his money more" 

Must be Richard Rufus then !!!

Thought Rufus was 'looking after' others peoples money more?

JaShea99 said:

bobmunro said:

JaShea99 said:

It always amazes me how people who work in the gambling industry pipe up to defend it whenever threads like this come up. I’d have thought they would just keep quiet, knowing how things really are. But to actually have the front to attempt to justify how they’ve made and continue to make a living as being (seemingly) morally fine is mind-blowing to me. As for the outright lie or perhaps delusion, in expecting people to believe that ‘no gambling company likes problem gamblers’, it almost defies belief.

You are talking from a position far removed from reality, or talking out of your arse - I’m not quite sure which but I have an idea.

I like to think I have a reasonable reputation on this forum and can assure you I speak the truth - and that’s from a position of actually fucking knowing.

I’m not though am I? For one thing morals are a matter of opinion, but then I suppose your ‘removed from reality/out of your arse’ comment is as well. Not sure what your reputation has to do with anything, I wasn’t even directing my post at you. But no matter how many years you’ve profited from gambling or how much you ‘fucking know’, there’s no way you can convince me that gambling companies don’t like problem gamblers. There’s far too much evidence (and you may call it anecdotal) on this thread alone.

Do you feel the same towards pub landlords / landladies, offy owners and shops that sell tobacco, like that one up next to Grove Park BR Station?

That's all recreational and is proven to cause physical harm. While I would think a pub manager would identify an out and out alcoholic and maybe take necessary action to get them help or whatever (same as someone selling fags to someone they know has a lung condition and a bookies who continues to trade with someone with a gambling addiction), they're still happy to serve casual drinkers, who are still drinking shed loads more than the recommended intake and would be arguably referred to as alcohol dependent, but they still get served and I would think the pub manager is happy to see the doors swing open and these people walk in at the start of a session. Is that all the same?

I obviously don’t have the figures, but I’d think the fast majority of people want the choice to drink, smoke and gamble (add take drugs to that, if you listen to some). So, when someone falls foul of one of these vices, it really ain’t fair to turn on the people that work in the respective industry imo. People obviously need help, but they also need to take ownership of their situation too, also, imo.

MrOneLung said:

These people have to take responsibility for themselves

'too many offers, so I keep gambling'
'too many takeaways, so I keep eating'
'beer is cheap at supermarket so I keep drinking at home'

I agree but some people find that harder to do that others for a variety of reasons.

Merson is someone who seemed unable to have a small drink or a little bet.  He "needed" to drink and take drugs to blot out whatever it was that was troubling him and he "needed" to get the buzz from betting more than he could afford. It was that risk that created the buzz.  He is an extreme and high profile example but there are others with smaller but still significant issues who can't or find it very hard to just stop.

So, while I agree that betting and drinking are rightly legal and mostly harmless, the people who sell those products also have a responsibility to try and minimise the chance of them being abused or their over use causing harm.  Just as we expect car manufacturers to make their cars safe and stadium owners to make football grounds safe.

At the same time if a manufacturer can make a very safe car but if someone drives it way over the speed limit while drunk and not wearing a seat belt is that the manufacturer's fault or the driver?    I'd say the driver but I'd also like to see prevention in place to stop that person driving like that in the first place such as driving tests, driver education campaigns, fines and imprisonment for bad drivers, speed cameras etc.

Whether the betting firms, or some betting firms as there seem to be dozens on football team shirts alone I've never heard of, do enough or do the right thing is open for debate and we've heard both sides on here and mostly in a rational way.

As someone who is risk adverse when betting and thinks twice about a £10 bet once a year on the National I don't get it but then I'm not the target audience.   

I don't like the seemingly all encompassing advertising especially those that shows it being all lads together having some "banter" (sic) as they bet.  It makes it seem as if you have to have a bet to enjoy football or be one of the lads which I feel is wrong.

I do some work in the video games industry (cos I'm young and hip like) and they are having similar issues.  They are being tasked by government officials with dealing with addictive gamers and the issues of young people spending over long hours in front of a screen when they should be down the pub with their mates watching football and having a bet with their mates.  I've actually suggested to some of the industry bodies that they should speak to the betting industry.

Just caught up with this and it did change my mind to the extent where I now think betting adverts should be banned. What persuaded me was the bit showing Merson's brain activity and his reaction to betting related images.  

MuttleyCAFC said:

Just caught up with this and it did change my mind to the extent where I now think betting adverts should be banned. What persuaded me was the bit showing Merson's brain activity and his reaction to betting related images.  

I think that's how adverts are meant to work.

Whether the person reacting to the ad, has a problem or addiction, is another matter. It's aimed at the majority who don't have the addiction. Exactly the same for alcohol advertising, they're not trying to entice alcoholics into going out and buying the product, it's aimed at the rest of us.

Henry Irving said:

MrOneLung said:

These people have to take responsibility for themselves

'too many offers, so I keep gambling'
'too many takeaways, so I keep eating'
'beer is cheap at supermarket so I keep drinking at home'

I agree but some people find that harder to do that others for a variety of reasons.

Merson is someone who seemed unable to have a small drink or a little bet.  He "needed" to drink and take drugs to blot out whatever it was that was troubling him and he "needed" to get the buzz from betting more than he could afford. It was that risk that created the buzz.  He is an extreme and high profile example but there are others with smaller but still significant issues who can't or find it very hard to just stop.

So, while I agree that betting and drinking are rightly legal and mostly harmless, the people who sell those products also have a responsibility to try and minimise the chance of them being abused or their over use causing harm.  Just as we expect car manufacturers to make their cars safe and stadium owners to make football grounds safe.

At the same time if a manufacturer can make a very safe car but if someone drives it way over the speed limit while drunk and not wearing a seat belt is that the manufacturer's fault or the driver?    I'd say the driver but I'd also like to see prevention in place to stop that person driving like that in the first place such as driving tests, driver education campaigns, fines and imprisonment for bad drivers, speed cameras etc.

Whether the betting firms, or some betting firms as there seem to be dozens on football team shirts alone I've never heard of, do enough or do the right thing is open for debate and we've heard both sides on here and mostly in a rational way.

As someone who is risk adverse when betting and thinks twice about a £10 bet once a year on the National I don't get it but then I'm not the target audience.   

I don't like the seemingly all encompassing advertising especially those that shows it being all lads together having some "banter" (sic) as they bet.  It makes it seem as if you have to have a bet to enjoy football or be one of the lads which I feel is wrong.

I do some work in the video games industry (cos I'm young and hip like) and they are having similar issues.  They are being tasked by government officials with dealing with addictive gamers and the issues of young people spending over long hours in front of a screen when they should be down the pub with their mates watching football and having a bet with their mates.  I've actually suggested to some of the industry bodies that they should speak to the betting industry.

I grew up playing Pac-Man in the 80's

If there was any kind of influence from playing video games, I would have spent the 90's in a darkened room, listening to repetitive electronic music, eating pills and seeing ghosts.

Oh, hang on......

has Merson's old mucker Tony Adams had a word ?, has Merson taken advice from the Sporting Chance charity ?
 Merson presumably still makes a good living from Sky Sports. Has he considered having all his earnings handed over to his wife or someone like a trustee to manage his outgoings ?, if not, why not ?
 After decades of problems and the frittering away of millions, why is Merson still allowed to be in charge of his finances, that is if he still is.  I haven't yet seen the programme so don't know if any of my questions were answered